Societal cost of traumatic brain injury: A comparison of cost-of-injuries related to biking with and without helmet use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to determine if a difference in societal costs exists from traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in patients who wear helmets compared to non-wearers. METHODS: This is a retrospective cost-of-injury study of 128 patients admitted to the Montreal General Hospital (MGH) following a TBI that occurred while cycling between 2007-2011. Information was collected from Quebec Trauma Registry. The independent variables collected were socio-demographic, helmet status, clinical and neurological patient information. The dependent variables evaluated societal costs. RESULTS: The median costs of hospitalization were significantly higher (p = 0.037) in the no helmet group ($7246.67 vs. $4328.17). No differences in costs were found for inpatient rehabilitation (p = 0.525), outpatient rehabilitation (p = 0.192), loss of productivity (p = 0.108) or death (p = 1.000). Overall, the differences in total societal costs between the helmet and no helmet group were not significantly different (p = 0.065). However, the median total costs for patients with isolated TBI in the non-helmet group ($22, 232.82) was significantly higher (p = 0.045) compared to the helmet group ($13, 920.15). CONCLUSION: Cyclists sustaining TBIs who did not wear helmets in this study were found to cost society nearly double that of helmeted cyclists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".